Hybrid variety of Texas×Kentucky bluegrass designated ‘HB 128’

ABSTRACT

A hybrid variety of Texas bluegrass×Kentucky bluegrass as described, characterized by rapid establishment; a medium dark green, dense turf; a medium wide leaf blade; aggressive spreading growth; a reduced level of cotton on the seed; and a medium to high seed yield potential.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

(a) Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to a new and distinct hybrid variety ofPoa arachnifera Torr.×Poa pratensis L. that has been designated as ‘HB128’ bluegrass.

(b) Description of Related Art

A Poa arachnifera×Poa pratensis hybrid designated ‘HB 129’ bluegrasshaving the same female parents as those employed in breeding the present‘HB 128’ bluegrass has been disclosed in U.S. Plant Pat. No. 18,467,issued Jan. 29, 2008. Also, a Poa arachnifera×Poa pratensis hybriddesignated ‘Reveille’ has been disclosed in PVP Certificate No. 9800337.

SUMMARY OF THE VARIETY

‘HB 128’ bluegrass is the result of a single plant selected from theprogeny of Texas bluegrass (Poa arachnifera Torr.) female plant ‘10-10’(seed parent), with cv. ‘Geronimo’ Kentucky bluegrass (pollenparent)(Poa pratensis L.) cross for perfect flowers, apomixis andturfgrass performance characteristics in the F₁ generation.

Texas bluegrass female plant ‘10-10’ is an unpatented, unreleased plantselected and maintained for its tiller density, turf quality and thelack of male reproductive organs. The cv. ‘Geronimo’ is an unpatented,released Kentucky bluegrass of European origin from MommersteegInternational, Vlijmen, the Netherlands. ‘HB 128’ morphologicallypossesses both female and male bearing structures (pistils and stamens),whereas the female parent ‘10-10’ morphologically possesses only femalebearing structures (pistils) and is void of male flowering structures(stamens).

Although the ‘HB 128’ and ‘HB 129’ are derived from the same parentplants, genetic variations between these species are virtuallyinevitable. During sexual reproduction, the genome of each parentdivides resulting in two different genomes for both the female Texasbluegrass parent and two different genomes for the male parent‘Geronimo’. Therefore, during the cross, four different combinations arepossible. In addition, Geronimo is composed of a number of strains. SeeGrass Varieties of The United States, Handbook No. 110 rev, 1994, page233 and the description of ‘Geronimo’ under the “Method of Breeding”section, which is incorporated by reference herein. Thus, even thoughthe parents are the same, progeny are not going to receive the same setof genomes; the result is genomes that are split and unaligned.

As a result of this breeding, a distinct variety was selected, producedand asexually propagated by rhizomes, tillers and disseminules. Thehighly apomictic seed of ‘HB 128’ bluegrass was produced first atGervais, Oreg. This seed was used to plant turf performance evaluationtrials and later, seed production fields.

The seed of ‘HB 128’ has been found to be stable. Asexual production of‘HB 128’ initially was performed at Gervais, Oreg. by propagules(tillers and rhizomes) and by disseminules (modified caryopses producedby apomixis), and has consistently produced progeny plantsindistinguishable from the first generation asexual reproductions of theinstant plant. The apomixis level of ‘HB128’ is approximately 99.0%. Theapomixis level was determined by examining field planting of ‘HB 128’ inone year of rating for apomictic origin and from disseminules harvestedover four growing seasons from field grown plants in Oregon.

‘HB 128’ has a number of highly desirable characteristics, including ahigh level of seedling vigor and rapid stand establishment. ‘HB 128’ hasan upright leafy turf type, medium leaf texture, a medium dark greencolor, and less than average leaf glaucosity which can be maintainedthroughout the entire growing season. ‘HB 128’ demonstrates early springgreenup and growth under mild winter conditions. ‘HB 128’ has anaggressive, spreading habit.

‘HB 128’ has a medium to high seed yield potential in the Kentuckybluegrass seed production region of the northwestern United States andhas shown the potential for economic seed production not seen in otherPoa arachnifera×Poa pratensis hybrids.

In comparison with the ‘Reveille’ hybrid, ‘HB 128’ has demonstratedrelatively rapid germination and emergence in fall sowings. Incomparison with ‘HB 129’, ‘HB 128’ is a darker green color, shows bettertolerance to foliar disease, is quicker to spring greenup and has a morerapid germination and establishment.

Texas bluegrass is a vigorous sod-forming perennial native in theSoutheastern and Southern Plains States. Plants grow up to 3 feet onstrong soil, with numerous leaves 6 to 12 inches long and 0.025 inchwide. The grass grows throughout the winter producing abundant,nutritious pasture which is highly palatable. This is a valuable specieswhere native, but seeding is difficult. The species is dioecious, withmale and female plants. It produces only limited quantities of seedwhich is covered with woolly hairs that are difficult to remove.Consequently, establishment of stands for agricultural use is limited.Accordingly, Texas bluegrass exhibits similar problems to thoseencountered with Reveille which are overcome by the present ‘HB 128’hybrid.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is an ‘HB 128’ panicle;

FIG. 2 is an ‘HB 128’ seed; and

FIG. 3 is an ‘HB 128’ plant shortly after completing anthesis.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIETY

‘HB 128’ Texas bluegrass×Kentucky bluegrass (Poa arachnifera L.×Poapratensis L.) hybrid is perennial with creeping rhizomes forming a denseturf. When plants grown over winter in the field and grown undisturbedby clipping, the culms are semi-erect averaging 62.6 cm in length. SeeTable 7 below. The vegetative leaf averages 8.6 cm in length. See Table16 below. Flag leaf length averages 5.65 cm in length, 4.4 mm in widthand has a sheath length of 13.4 cm. See Tables 19, 20 and 23 below. Theflag leaf ligule averages 1.9 mm in length and has more than averagehairs on ligule than other varieties. See Table 30 below. The panicleaverages 10.1 cm in length and 10.3 cm in width. See Tables 34 and 35below. The lowest whorl of the panicle averages 4.4 branches, the thirdwhorl averages 3.7 branches, and the peduncle averages 30.4 cm inlength. See Tables 42, 48 and 49 below.

‘HB 128’ produces inflorescences relatively early compared with Kentuckybluegrasses.

Comparisons of ‘HB 128’ were made with other hybrid bluegrass varietiesas well as Texas and Kentucky bluegrasses in three nurseries (designated#1–#3) in Gervais, Oreg. See Tables 1–60 below. Each nursery contained adifferent soil type (e.g., having different pHs) and were planted indifferent years.

Comparisons of ‘HB 128’ were also made with various Kentucky bluegrassesin turf plantings in California, Oregon and Texas. See Tables 61–66below.

TABLE 1 Comparison of heading dates (Julian) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. Variety GrowingSeason #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 133.2 119.1 ‘HB-129’ 133.4 119.6‘HB-130’ 133.1 119.4 ‘HB-328’ 135.4 118.3 ‘HB-329’ 135.6 116.1‘Geronimo’ 127.6 119.4 ‘TX51-90’ 127.1 93.0 ‘TX49-90’ 123.7 106.1‘Ascot’ 135.8 124.7 ‘Midnight’ 143.3 137.0 ‘Reveille’ 130.8 111.8‘Kelly’ 138.7 128.0 LSD (P = .05) 4.0 4.2

TABLE 2 Comparison of heading dates (Julian) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #1. Variety GrowingSeason #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 105.7 114.0 ‘HB-129’ 108.0 115.0‘HB-130’ 105.0 115.0 ‘Abbey’ 108.3 112.7 ‘HB 329’ 114.3 105.0 ‘Ascot’109.7 113.3 ‘Geronimo’ 105.0 114.0 ‘TX 19-88’ 119.5 94.5 ‘TX 46-90’113.0 94.0 TX 4-88’ 103.0 94.0 LSD (P = .05) 5.6 3.4

TABLE 3 Comparison of anthesis dates (Julian) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. Variety GrowingSeason #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 138.9 132.3 ‘HB-129’ 138.4 132.2‘HB-130’ 140.8 132.6 ‘HB-328’ 143.5 134.8 ‘HB-329’ 142.7 131.2‘Geronimo’ 136.5 133.6 ‘TX51-90’ 138.5 124.8 ‘TX49-90’ 139.0 128.3‘Ascot’ 141.1 134.3 ‘Midnight’ 148.7 143.5 ‘Reveille’ 146.4 135.3‘Kelly’ 145.5 137.4 LSD (P = .05) 3.6 3.3

TABLE 4 Comparison of heading and anthesis dates (Julian) of ‘HB-128’and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #2.Variety Heading Date Anthesis Date ‘HB-128’ 122.0 138.3 ‘HB-129’ 119.5138.0 ‘HB-130’ 121.5 140.8 ‘HB-328’ 118.4 135.6 ‘HB 329’ 123.0 144.8‘Reveille’ 115.8 141.4 Geronimo’ 121.6 139.9 ‘Ascot’ 123.7 140.5“Midnight 142.3 148.2 ‘Buckingham’ 124.5 141.8 ‘TX 51-91’ 116.2 139.7‘TX 39-88’ 121.4 TX 49-90’ 119.2 139.5 ‘Kelly’ 130.8 143.4 LSD (p = .05)4.7 5.0

TABLE 5 Comparison of Anther Color of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texasbluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. (1 = Purple, 2 = Yellow, 3 =Brown, 4 = Blue, and 5 = Black) Variety Growing Season #1 Growing Season#2 ‘HB-128’ 1.8 1.3 ‘HB-129’ 1.8 2.1 ‘HB-130’ 1.6 1.9 ‘HB-328’ 1.8 3.4‘HB-329’ 1.8 2.4 ‘Geronimo’ 1.4 2.0 ‘TX51-90’ 2.0 2.0 ‘TX49-90’ 2.0 1.9‘Ascot’ 1.6 3.2 ‘Midnight’ 1.0 2.0 ‘Reveille’ 1.8 2.0 ‘Kelly’ 1.7 2.9LSD (p = .05) 0.4 1.3

TABLE 6 Comparison of field plant height (cm) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars grown in nursery #3. Variety GrowingSeason #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 54.6 57.4 ‘HB-129’ 57.2 58.1‘HB-130’ 54.9 57.3 ‘HB-328’ 36.7 41.0 ‘HB-329’ 37.9 46.0 ‘Geronimo’ 54.759.5 ‘TX51-90’ 49.6 71.2 ‘TX49-90’ 46.9 69.7 ‘Ascot’ 32.0 30.7‘Midnight’ 36.6 ‘Reveille’ 54.9 71.9 ‘Kelly’ 43.0 27.2 LSD (P = .05) 6.57.0

TABLE 7 Comparison of length of harvested culms of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. Culm Length (cm)Variety Growing Season #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 61.2 64.1 ‘HB-129’62.6 62.9 ‘HB-130’ 61.0 64.4 ‘HB-328’ 44.9 62.4 ‘HB-329’ 36.1 58.9‘Geronimo’ 58.5 56.5 ‘TX51-90’ 55.9 72.4 ‘TX49-90’ 49.8 74.7 ‘Ascot’42.7 49.9 ‘Midnight’ 47.1 54.6 ‘Reveille’ 62.3 74.3 ‘Kelly’ 48.9 54.9LSD (P = .05) 5.4 5.4

TABLE 8 Comparison plant height in the field and the height of harvestedculms of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted innursery #2. Height of Variety Plant Height - Field (cm) Harvested Culms(cm) ‘HB-128’ 54.5 58.5 ‘HB-129’ 58.3 64.8 ‘HB-130’ 54.6 63.0 ‘HB-328’40.4 55.7 ‘HB 329’ 35.8 49.5 ‘Reveille’ 51.6 62.6 Geronimo’ 56.9 67.6‘Ascot’ 38.2 52.4 ‘Midnight’ 29.7 51.8 ‘Buckingham’ 48.2 62.4 ‘TX 51-91’44.5 49.1 ‘TX 39-88’ 56.8 56.8 TX 49-90’ 52.6 63.7 ‘Kelly’ 38.0 54.9 LSD(P = .05) 8.4 7.2

TABLE 9 Comparison of the Distance (cm) from Basil Node to Tiller LeafNode of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted innursery #3. Variety Growing Season #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 5.710.3 ‘HB-129’ 6.1 9.5 ‘HB-130’ 5.8 8.7 ‘HB-328’ 3.6 9.0 ‘HB-329’ 2.1 3.8‘Geronimo’ 4.9 9.7 ‘TX51-90’ 0.5 3.1 ‘TX49-90’ 1.0 3.6 ‘Ascot’ 2.9 4.8‘Midnight’ 5.3 9.3 ‘Reveille’ 1.8 4.7 ‘Kelly’ 4.4 6.6 LSD (P = .05) 1.42.4

TABLE 10 Comparison of the distance (cm) from basal node to the flagleaf node for ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivarsplanted in nursery #3. Variety Growing Season #1 Growing Season #2‘HB-128’ 17.2 26.3 ‘HB-129’ 21.4 23.7 ‘HB-130’ 18.7 24.1 ‘HB-328’ 11.922.8 ‘HB-329’ 8.5 16.0 ‘Geronimo’ 16.3 22.7 ‘TX51-90’ 5.2 13.9 ‘TX49-90’8.3 19.5 ‘Ascot’ 10.5 11.7 ‘Midnight’ 8.4 19.0 ‘Reveille’ 12.2 21.1‘Kelly’ 13.1 16.2 LSD (p = .05) 3.6 5.0

TABLE 11 Comparison of the number of nodes on flowering culms of‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery#3. Variety Growing Season #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 4.1 5.5‘HB-129’ 4.3 4.9 ‘HB-130’ 4.3 4.9 ‘HB-328’ 3.7 5.0 ‘HB-329’ 3.0 4.6‘Geronimo’ 4.8 5.5 ‘TX51-90’ 2.3 3.8 ‘TX49-90’ 2.4 3.5 ‘Ascot’ 3.7 4.8‘Midnight’ 4.5 5.9 ‘Reveille’ 3.2 3.1 ‘Kelly’ 4.2 5.1 LSD (p = .05) 0.70.7

TABLE 12 Comparison of the number of nodes on flowering culm for‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted at nursery#2. Variety Growing Season ‘HB-128’ 4.1 ‘HB-129’ 4.5 ‘HB-130’ 4.4‘HB-328’ 3.0 ‘HB 329’ 3.1 ‘Reveille’ 2.8 Geronimo’ 4.7 ‘Ascot’ 4.1‘Midnight’ 4.5 ‘Buckingham’ 4.6 ‘TX 51-91’ 2.2 ‘TX 39-88’ 2.1 TX 49-90’2.4 ‘Kelly’ 4.1 LSD (P = .05) 1.1

TABLE 13 Comparison of the number of nodes on flowering culms for‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery#1. Variety Growing Season ‘HB-128’ 4.9 ‘HB-129’ 4.7 ‘HB-130’ 3.9‘Abbey’ 4.1 ‘HB 329’ 4.2 ‘Ascot’ 4.8 ‘Geronimo’ 4.1 ‘TX 19-88’ 3.8 ‘TX46-90’ 3.4 TX 4-88’ 4.1 LSD (p = .05) 0.9

TABLE 14 Comparison of plant growth habit of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky andTexas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. (1 = Prostrate, 2 =Semi-prostrate, 3 = Erect growth habit). Variety Growing Season ‘HB-128’1.93 ‘HB-129’ 2.00 ‘HB-130’ 2.00 ‘HB-328’ 1.07 ‘HB-329’ 2.00 ‘Geronimo’1.67 ‘TX51-90’ 3.00 ‘TX49-90’ 3.00 ‘Ascot’ 1.00 ‘Midnight’ 1.10‘Reveille’ 3.00 ‘Kelly’ 1.23 LSD (P = .05) 0.3

TABLE 15 Comparison of plant leaf tissue color of ‘HB 128’ and otherbluegrass plants planted in nursery #3 (based on Munsell color chartsfor plant tissue of hue/value/chroma). ←Lighter Green to Darker Green →Variety 7.5GY 4/6 2.5G 4/4 2.5G 4/6 5G 4/4 ‘HB 128’ 0% 79% 14% 7% ‘HB129’ 47%  13%  0% 40%  ‘HB 130’ 0% 57% 29% 0% *This table shows that ‘HB128’ is darker green than ‘HB 129’ based on color charts.

TABLE 16 Comparison of vegetative leaf length (cm) of ‘HB-128’ andKentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. VarietyGrowing Season #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 8.3 8.8 ‘HB-129’ 5.5 9.3‘HB-130’ 8.1 10.3 ‘HB-328’ 7.2 10.6 ‘HB-329’ 6.5 9.7 ‘Geronimo’ 8.3 9.8‘TX51-90’ 13.2 15.6 ‘TX49-90’ 7.9 16.6 ‘Ascot’ 6.5 7.87 ‘Midnight’ 8.011.6 ‘Reveille’ 10.7 14.0 ‘Kelly’ 7.1 9.2 LSD (P = .05) 2.0 2.7

TABLE 17 Comparison of vegetative leaf length (cm) and width (mm) of‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery#2. Vegetative Vegetative Variety Leaf Length (cm) Leaf Width (mm)‘HB-128’ 7.7 3.9 ‘HB-129’ 9.4 4.6 ‘HB-130’ 9.0 4.6 ‘HB-328’ 7.8 4.1 ‘HB329’ 9.4 4.9 ‘Reveille’ 9.2 3.0 Geronimo’ 9.1 4.6 ‘Ascot’ 8.6 3.7‘Midnight’ 7.6 4.0 ‘Buckingham’ 10.2 5.1 ‘TX 51-91’ 9.1 3.6 ‘TX 39-88’9.0 4.6 TX 49-90’ 12.3 5.9 ‘Kelly’ 9.8 3.9 LSD (P = .05) 3.3 1.0

TABLE 18 Comparison of flag leaf length (cm) for ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. Variety GrowingSeason #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 5.9 5.4 ‘HB-129’ 5.9 5.9 ‘HB-130’5.8 6.7 ‘HB-328’ 4.7 7.4 ‘HB-329’ 5.0 6.7 ‘Geronimo’ 5.7 6.0 ‘TX5l-90’11.1 15.7 ‘TX49-90’ 6.8 14.0 ‘Ascot’ 4.3 5.5 ‘Midnight’ 5.8 8.1‘Reveille’ 9.5 13.1 ‘Kelly’ 4.4 6.9 LSD (p = .05) 1.6 2.1

TABLE 19 Comparison of the flag leaf width (mm) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. Variety GrowingSeason #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 4.6 4.2 ‘HB-129’ 4.5 4.0 ‘HB-130’4.6 3.3 ‘HB-328’ 3.8 3.8 ‘HB-329’ 4.1 3.3 ‘Geronimo’ 5.0 3.0 ‘TX51-90’4.9 4.5 ‘TX49-90’ 5.1 4.8 ‘Ascot’ 4.0 3.6 ‘Midnight’ 3.6 3.7 ‘Reveille’4.1 3.1 ‘Kelly’ 4.2 4.0 LSD (P = .05) 0.6 0.8

TABLE 20 Flag leaf length (cm) and width (mm) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #2. Variety Flag LeafLength (cm) Flag Leaf Width (mm) ‘HB-128’ 5.1 3.3 ‘HB-129’ 7.2 4.0‘HB-130’ 6.5 4.0 ‘HB-328’ 6.8 3.7 ‘HB 329’ 5.8 3.6 ‘Reveille’ 7.6 3.2Geronimo’ 6.7 4.2 ‘Ascot’ 5.9 3.2 ‘Midnight’ 5.0 3.1 ‘Buckingham’ 6.24.2 ‘TX 51-91’ 7.3 3.8 ‘TX 39-88’ 8.1 4.6 TX 49-90’ 9.0 5.3 ‘Kelly’ 6.13.6 LSD (P = .05) 2.6 1.2

TABLE 21 Comparison of green flag leaf thickness (mm) of ‘HB-128’ andKentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. VarietyGrowing Season ‘HB-128’ 0.197 ‘HB-129’ 0.180 ‘HB-130’ 0.183 ‘HB-328’0.197 ‘HB-329’ 0.217 ‘Geronimo’ 0.193 ‘TX51-90’ 0.243 ‘TX49-90’ 0.247‘Ascot’ 0.193 ‘Reveille’ 0.210 ‘Kelly’ 0.198 LSD (P = .05) 0.040

TABLE 22 Comparison of dried flag leaf thickness (mm) of ‘HB-128’ andKentucky and Texas bluegrass planted in nursery #2. Variety GrowingSeason ‘HB-128’ 0.01689 ‘HB-129’ 0.01491 ‘HB-130’ 0.01452 ‘HB-328’0.02015 ‘HB 329’ 0.01819 ‘Reveille’ 0.02074 ‘Geronimo’ 0.01637 ‘Ascot’0.01659 ‘Midnight’ 0.01452 ‘Buckingham’ 0.01896 ‘TX 51-91’ 0.02618 ‘TX39-88’ 0.01985 ‘TX 49-90’ 0.02311 ‘Kelly’ 0.01630 LSD (P = .05) 0.0033

TABLE 23 Comparison of flag leaf sheath length (cm) of ‘HB128’ andKentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. VarietyGrowing Season #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 12.7 14.1 ‘HB-129’ 13.215.6 ‘HB-130’ 13.1 15.5 ‘HB-328’ 10.9 15.5 ‘HB-329’ 10.2 14.2 ‘Geronimo’12.3 16.3 ‘TX51-90’ 15.0 17.9 ‘TX49-90’ 10.5 15.5 ‘Ascot’ 9.5 13.7‘Midnight’ 9.1 15.0 ‘Reveille’ 15.0 17.0 ‘Kelly’ 10.8 15.7 LSD (P = .05)1.4 2.1

TABLE 24 Flag leaf sheath length (cm) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texasbluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #2. Variety Growing Season‘HB-128’ 13.7 ‘HB-129’ 15.5 ‘HB-130’ 15.3 ‘HB-328’ 13.1 ‘HB 329’ 12.9‘Reveille’ 16.4 ‘Geronimo’ 15.3 ‘Ascot’ 13.3 ‘Midnight’ 11.2‘Buckingham’ 14.0 ‘TX 51-91’ 11.4 ‘TX 39-88’ 14.9 ‘TX 49-90’ 14.8‘Kelly’ 14.4 LSD (P = .05) 2.6

TABLE 25 Comparison of hairs on flag leaf sheath margin of ‘HB-128’ andKentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. (1 =Absent or 2 = Present). Variety Growing Season #1 Growing Season #2‘HB-128’ 1.0 1.20 ‘HB-129’ 1.0 1.10 ‘HB-130’ 1.0 1.13 ‘HB-328’ 1.0 1.30‘HB-329’ 1.0 1.13 ‘Geronimo’ 1.0 1.20 ‘TX51-90’ 1.0 1.00 ‘TX49-90’ 1.01.00 ‘Ascot’ 1.0 1.32 ‘Midnight’ 1.0 n/a ‘Reveille’ 1.0 1.00 ‘Kelly’ 1.01.72 LSD (P = .05) 0.1 0.25

TABLE 26 Comparison of margin roughness of flag leaf sheath of ‘HB128’and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3 (1 =Smooth or 2 = Rough). Variety Growing Season #1 Growing Season #2‘HB-128’ 1.5 1.0 ‘HB-129’ 1.7 1.0 ‘HB-130’ 1.7 1.0 ‘HB-328’ 1.6 1.0‘HB-329’ 1.5 1.0 ‘Geronimo’ 1.7 1.0 ‘TX51-90’ 1.3 1.0 ‘TX49-90’ 1.4 1.1‘Ascot’ 1.7 1.0 ‘Midnight’ 1.7 n/a ‘Reveille’ 1.3 1.0 ‘Kelly’ 1.4 1.0LSD (P = .05) 0.33  0.11

TABLE 27 Comparison of surface roughness of leaf sheath of ‘HB-128’ andKentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3 (1 = Smoothor 2 = Rough). Variety Growing Season #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 1.51.00 ‘HB-129’ 1.6 1.00 ‘HB-130’ 1.5 1.00 ‘HB-328’ 1.7 1.00 ‘HB-329’ 1.31.07 ‘Geronimo’ 1.5 1.00 ‘TX51-90’ 1.3 1.00 ‘TX49-90’ 1.4 1.00 ‘Ascot’1.7 1.00 ‘Midnight’ 1.5 n/a ‘Reveille’ 1.1 1.00 ‘Kelly’ 1.6 1.00 LSD (P= .05) 0.3 0.1 

TABLE 28 Comparison of leaf sheath glaucosity of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. (1 = Glaucosityabsent or 2 = Glaucosity Present) Variety Growing Season ‘HB-128’ 1.2‘HB-129’ 1.4 ‘HB-130’ 1.1 ‘HB-328’ 1.2 ‘HB-329’ 1.5 ‘Geronimo’ 1.1‘TX51-90’ 1.2 ‘TX49-90’ 1.4 ‘Ascot’ 1.3 ‘Midnight’ 1.0 ‘Reveille’ 1.1‘Kelly’ 1.5 LSD (p = .05) 0.35

TABLE 29 Comparison of hairs on both side of collar margin of ‘HB-128’and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3 (1 =hairs absent or 2 = hairs present). Variety Growing Season #1 GrowingSeason #2 ‘HB-128’ 1.0 1.0 ‘HB-129’ 1.0 1.0 ‘HB-130’ 1.0 1.0 ‘HB-328’1.0 1.2 ‘HB-329’ 1.0 1.0 ‘Geronimo’ 1.0 1.0 ‘TX51-90’ 1.0 1.0 ‘TX49-90’1.0 1.0 ‘Ascot’ 1.0 1.3 ‘Midnight’ 1.0 n/a ‘Reveille’ 1.0 1.0 ‘Kelly’1.0 1.6 LSD (P = .05) 0.00  0.15

TABLE 30 Comparison of ligule length (mm) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky andTexas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. Variety Growing Season‘HB-128’ 1.9 ‘HB-129’ 1.7 ‘HB-130’ 1.8 ‘HB-328’ 2.0 ‘HB-329’ 2.0‘Geronimo’ 1.9 ‘TX51-90’ 2.0 ‘TX49-90’ 2.6 ‘Ascot’ 2.2 ‘Midnight’ n/a‘Reveille’ 3.0 ‘Kelly’ 1.9 LSD (P = .05) 0.4

TABLE 31 Comparison of ligule length (mm) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky andTexas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #2. Variety Growing Season‘HB-128’ 1.4 ‘HB-129’ 1.3 ‘HB-130’ 1.7 ‘HB-328’ 2.4 ‘HB 329’ 2.2‘Reveille’ 2.3 ‘Geronimo’ 1.7 ‘Ascot’ 2.0 ‘Midnight’ 0.8 ‘Buckingham’2.4 ‘TX 51-91’ 1.6 ‘TX 39-88’ 2.7 ‘TX 49-90’ 2.0 ‘Kelly’ 2.1 LSD (p =.05) 0.7

TABLE 32 Comparison of hairs on ligule of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky andTexas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #2. (9 = many hairs and 1 =none) Variety Growing Season ‘HB-128’ 5.8 ‘HB-129’ 5.8 ‘HB-130’ 4.5‘HB-328’ 5.1 ‘HB 329’ 2.8 ‘Reveille’ 0.9 ‘Geronimo’ 7.1 ‘Ascot’ 5.6‘Midnight’ 3.9 ‘Buckingham’ 8.1 ‘TX 51-91’ n/a ‘TX 39-88’ 0.1 TX 49-90’n/a ‘Kelly’ 6.3 LSD (P = .05) 1.9

TABLE 33 Comparison of hairs on ligule of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky andTexas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. (1 = hairs absent or 2= hairs present). Variety Growing Season #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’1.0 1.5 ‘HB-129’ 1.0 1.1 ‘HB-130’ 1.0 1.2 ‘HB-328’ 1.0 1.2 ‘HB-329’ 1.01.1 ‘Geronimo’ 1.0 1.3 ‘TX51-90’ 1.0 1.0 ‘TX49-90’ 1.0 1.0 ‘Ascot’ 1.01.5 ‘Midnight’ 1.0 n/a ‘Reveille’ 1.0 1.0 ‘Kelly’ 1.0 1.8 LSD (P = .05)0.00  0.37

TABLE 34 Comparison of panicle length (cm) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky andTexas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. Variety Growing Season#1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 9.9 10.2 ‘HB-129’ 9.8 10.2 ‘HB-130’ 9.711.3 ‘HB-328’ 8.7 11.9 ‘HB-329’ 7.6 10.1 ‘Geronimo’ 10.0 10.8 ‘TX51-90’12.6 14.7 ‘TX49-90’ 8.6 11.9 ‘Ascot’ 7.8 9.2 ‘Midnight’ 8.2 11.4‘Reveille’ 11.9 14.3 ‘Kelly’ 8.1 10.7 LSD (P = .05) 1.1 1.8

TABLE 35 Comparison of panicle width (cm) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky andTexas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. Variety Growing Season#1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 10.4 10.2 ‘HB-129’ 9.9 10.2 ‘HB-130’ 10.310.7 ‘HB-328’ 8.7 11.1 ‘HB-329’ 7.7 9.3 ‘Geronimo’ 10.S 10.4 ‘TXS1-90’10.6 10.3 ‘TX49-90’ 7.0 8.4 ‘Ascot’ 7.1 9.1 ‘Midnight’ 7.9 11.0‘Reveille’ 10.0 10.5 ‘Kelly’ 8.3 11.0 LSD (p = .05) 1.3 1.5

TABLE 36 Comparison of panicle length and width of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #2. Variety PanicleLength (cm) Panicle Width (cm) ‘HB-128’ 12.2 9.8 ‘HB-129’ 10.5 10.3‘HB-130’ 10.7 10.8 ‘HB-328’ 10.7 9.7 ‘HB 329’ 8.8 7.9 ‘Reveille’ 10.99.1 Geronimo’ 11.1 11.4 ‘Ascot’ 9.3 8.9 ‘Midnight’ 7.8 7.9 ‘Buckingham’11.5 10.3 ‘TX 51-91’ 9.7 8.8 ‘TX 39-88’ 10.7 8.5 TX 49-90’ 8.7 6.8‘Kelly’ 9.8 9.4 LSD (P = .05) 2.3 1.8

TABLE 37 Comparison of panicle length and width of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #1. Variety PanicleLength (cm) Panicle Width (cm) ‘HB-128’ 8.9 7.9 ‘HB-129’ 9.2 8.4‘HB-130’ 9.3 8.5 ‘Abbey’ 12.5 6.9 ‘HB 329’ 8.6 6.9 ‘Ascot’ 7.6 7.0‘Geronimo’ 8.9 8.1 ‘TX 19-88’ 13.1 9.7 ‘TX 46-90’ 13.5 9.5 TX 4-88’ 13.79.2 LSD (P = .05) 2.7 1.2

TABLE 38 Comparison of panicle habit of ‘HS-128’ and Kentucky and Texasbluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. (1 = Nodding or 2 = Upright).Variety Growing Season ‘HS-128’ 1.0 ‘HS-129’ 1.1 ‘HS-130’ 1.1 ‘HS-328’1.2 ‘HS-329’ 1.4 ‘Geronimo’ 1.1 ‘TX51-90’ 1.3 ‘TX49-90’ 1.9 ‘Ascot’ 1.2‘Midnight’ 1.1 ‘Reveille’ 1.9 ‘Kelly’ 1.5 LSD (P = .05) 0.4

TABLE 39 Comparison of panicle color of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texasbluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. (1 = not red or 2 = red).Variety Growing Season ‘HB-128’ 1.0 ‘HB-129’ 1.0 ‘HB-130’ 1.0 ‘HB-328’1.0 ‘HB-329’ 1.1 ‘Geronimo’ 1.0 ‘TXS1-90’ 1.2 ‘TX49-90’ 1.1 ‘Ascot’ 1.1‘Midnight’ 1.0 ‘Reveille’ 1.0 ‘Kelly’ 1.0 LSD (P = .05) 0.2

The ‘HB-128’ panicle color is described by rating panicle color eitheras an expression absence or presence of a shade of red. A rating of 1=noexpression of any shade of red on the panicle. A rating of 2=anexpression a visual shade of red on the panicle when the plant is at ornear the 50% flowering stage. This rating system is described in formST-470(02-06) of Plant Variety Protection Office for Kentucky bluegrass.

TABLE 40 Comparison of panicle shape of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texasbluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #2. Variety % Open % Intermediate% Compact ‘HB-128’ 98.3 1.6 0.0 ‘HB-129’ 96.8 3.2 0.0 ‘HB-130’ 100.0 0.00.0 ‘HB-328’ 98.3 1.6 0.0 ‘HB 329’ 94.4 5.6 0.0 ‘Reveille’ 27.0 59.813.1 Geronimo’ 100.0 0.0 0.0 ‘Ascot’ 98.3 1.6 0.0 ‘Midnight’ 100.0 0.00.0 ‘Buckingham’ 100.0 0.0 0.0 ‘TX 51-91’ 1.8 23.2 74.9 ‘TX 39-88’ 1.813.5 84.5 TX 49-90’ 1.8 23.9 74.2 ‘Kelly’ 98.4 1.6 0.0 LSD (P = .05)12.8 15.3 10.1

TABLE 41 Comparison of panicle type of ‘HB-12B’ and Kentucky and Texasbluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. (1 = open, 2 = intermediate,or 3 = compact panicle). Variety Growing Season ‘HB-12B’ 1.0 ‘HB-129’1.0 ‘HB-130’ 1.0 ‘HB-32B’ 1.1 ‘HB-329’ 1.1 ‘Geronimo’ 1.0 ‘TX51-90’ 2.7‘TX49-90’ 2.9 ‘Ascot’ 1.0 ‘Midnight’ 1.0 ‘Reveille’ 2.8 ‘Kelly’ 1.0 LSD(p = .05) 0.2

TABLE 42 Comparison of peduncle length (cm) of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky andTexas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. Variety Growing Season#1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 33.1 27.6 ‘HB-129’ 32.7 28.8 ‘HB-130’ 32.228.7 ‘HB-328’ 24.4 30.0 ‘HB-329’ 19.9 29.1 ‘Geronimo’ 29.0 25.6‘TX51-90’ 36.9 43.6 ‘TX49-90’ 34.4 46.0 ‘Ascot’ 24.3 29.7 ‘Midnight’27.4 24.0 ‘Reveille’ 37.8 37.3 ‘Kelly’ 26.4 27.7 LSD (P = .05) 3.8 4.4

TABLE 44 Comparison of panicle branch attitude of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckyand Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. (1 = drooping, 2 =horizontal, 3 = ascending branch attitude) Variety Growing Season‘HB-128’ 2.0 ‘HB-129’ 1.9 ‘HB-130’ 2.0 ‘HB-328’ 2.0 ‘HB-329’ 2.0‘Geronimo’ 1.8 ‘TXS1-90’ 2.7 ‘TX49-90’ 2.9 ‘Ascot’ 1.9 ‘Midnight’ 2.0‘Reveille’ 3.0 ‘Kelly’ 2.3 LSD (P = .05) 0.4

TABLE 45 Comparison of visual estimate of the amount of cotton webbingat base of lemma and on lemma nerves, after hand rubbing of paniclesprior to seed conditioning of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrassplanted in nursery #3. (9 = most cotton webbing, 1 = no cotton webbing).Variety Growing Season ‘HB-128’ 3.7 ‘HB-129’ 3.3 ‘HB-130’ 2.8 ‘HB-328’4.7 ‘HB-329’ 7.7 ‘Geronimo’ 2.8 ‘TX51-90’ 8.0 ‘TX49-90’ 6.5 ‘Ascot’ 3.7‘Midnight’ 2.8 ‘Reveille’ 7.3 ‘Kelly’ 4.3 LSD (P = .05) 1.0

TABLE 46 Comparison of the number of whorls in the panicles of ‘HB-128’and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #2.Variety Growing Season ‘HB-128’ 8.0 ‘HB-129’ 8.0 ‘HB-130’ 8.2 ‘HB-328’8.8 ‘HB 329’ 8.1 ‘Reveille’ 7.6 Geronimo’ 8.4 ‘Ascot’ 7.2 ‘Midnight’ 7.2‘Buckingham’ 8.4 ‘TX 51-91’ 7.0 ‘TX 39-88’ 7.0 TX 49-90’ 7.7 ‘Kelly’ 8.2LSD (p = .05) 1.3

TABLE 47 Comparison of the number whorls in the panicles of ‘HB-128’ andKentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #1. VarietyGrowing Season ‘HB-128’ 9.1 ‘HB-129’ 8.6 ‘HB-130’ 8.9 ‘Abbey’ 9.3 ‘HB329’ 8.1 ‘Ascot’ 7.0 ‘Geronimo’ 8.9 ‘TX 19-88’ n/a ‘TX 46-90’ 10.0 TX4-88’ 10.0 LSD (P = .05) 0.5

TABLE 48 Comparison of the number of branches in the lowest whorl of thepanicle of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars plantedin nursery #3. Variety Growing Season #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 4.34.4 ‘HB-129’ 4.4 4.4 ‘HB-130’ 4.5 4.6 ‘HB-328’ 4.3 4.9 ‘HB-329’ 3.8 4.3‘Geronimo’ 4.5 4.6 ‘TX51-90’ 4.7 5.9 ‘TX49-90’ 3.8 6.0 ‘Ascot’ 2.7 4.6‘Midnight’ 3.8 4.7 ‘Reveille’ 6.4 7.3 ‘Kelly’ 4.5 5.2 LSD (P = .05) 1.00.8

TABLE 49 Comparison of the number of branches in the third whorl of thepanicle of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars plantedin nursery #3. Variety Growing Season #1 Growing Season #2 ‘HB-128’ 3.53.9 ‘HB-129’ 3.5 3.8 ‘HB-130’ 4.6 4.1 ‘HB-328’ 3.3 4.2 ‘HB-329’ 2.7 3.7‘Geronimo’ 3.6 3.9 ‘TX51-90’ 4.2 5.6 ‘TX49-90’ 3.3 5.7 ‘Ascot’ 3.1 4.2‘Midnight’ 3.33 3.9 ‘Reveille’ 5.3 5.5 ‘Kelly’ 4.0 4.2 LSD (P = .05) 0.80.5

TABLE 50 Comparison of the number of branches in the first and thirdwhorl of the panicle of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrasscultivars planted in nursery #1. Variety First Whorl Third Whorl‘HB-128’ 4.1 3.3 ‘HB-129’ 4.0 3.3 ‘HB-130’ 3.9 3.2 ‘Abbey’ 3.1 3.1 ‘HB329’ 4.4 3.8 ‘Ascot’ 2.8 2.4 ‘Geronimo’ 4.0 3.5 ‘TX 19-88’ 5.4 n/a ‘TX46-90’ 4.9 4.9 TX 4-88’ 5.7 6.4 LSD (p = .05) 0.8 0.8

TABLE 51 Comparison of the number of branches in the first and thirdwhorl of the panicle of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrasscultivars planted in nursery #2. Variety First Whorl Third Whorl‘HB-128’ 4.2 3.3 ‘HB-129’ 4.0 3.2 ‘HB-130’ 4.3 3.3 ‘HB-328’ 4.3 2.9 ‘HB329’ 3.6 2.1 ‘Reveille’ 5.2 3.2 Geronimo’ 4.4 3.1 ‘Ascot’ 3.8 2.2‘Midnight’ 4.1 2.5 ‘Buckingham’ 3.2 2.3 ‘TX 51-91’ 4.3 2.9 ‘TX 39-88’2.3 2.8 TX 49-90’ 3.6 3.2 ‘Kelly’ 4.6 3.1 LSD (P = .05) 0.9 1.1

TABLE 52 Comparison of spikelet length (mm) in the first and third whorlof panicle of ‘HB 128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivarsplanted in nursery #2. Variety First Whorl Third Whorl ‘HB-128’ 6.9 6.8‘HB-129’ 7.6 7.1 ‘HB-130’ 6.4 6.7 ‘HB-328’ 6.6 6.8 ‘HB 329’ 6.2 6.5‘Reveille’ 6.1 6.4 Geronimo’ 5.5 6.3 ‘Ascot’ 5.6 5.8 ‘Midnight’ 5.6 6.3‘Buckingham’ 6.9 6.9 ‘TX 51-91’ 7.5 7.4 ‘TX 39-88’ 8.6 8.5 TX 49-90’ 9.79.7 ‘Kelly’ 6.3 6.1 LSD (P = .05) 1.7 1.7

TABLE 53 Comparison of the spikelet width (mm) in first and third whorlof the panicle of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivarsplanted in nursery #2. Variety First Whorl Third Whorl ‘HB-128’ 3.8 4.0‘HB-129’ 4.5 4.0 ‘HB-130’ 4.2 3.6 ‘HB-328’ 5.2 4.4 ‘HB 329’ 4.3 3.8‘Reveille’ 4.0 4.2 Geronimo’ 4.2 4.0 ‘Ascot’ 4.4 4.3 ‘Midnight’ 2.5 3.0‘Buckingham’ 4.6 4.7 ‘TX 51-91’ 7.1 6.9 ‘TX 39-88’ 5.9 5.7 TX 49-90’ 8.28.0 ‘Kelly’ 4.4 4.3 LSD (P = .05) 1.9 1.6

TABLE 54 Comparison of the length (mm) of the glume #1 in the first andthird whorl of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivarsplanted in nursery #2. #1 Glume Length in #1 Glume Length in VarietyFirst Whorl (mm) Third Whorl (mm) ‘HB-128’ 3.1 2.9 ‘HB-129’ 3.1 3.2‘HB-130’ 3.0 3.0 ‘HB-328’ 3.4 3.6 ‘HB 329’ 3.7 3.6 ‘Reveille’ 2.9 3.3Geronimo’ 2.7 3.0 ‘Ascot’ 2.9 2.9 ‘Midnight’ 2.6 2.5 ‘Buckingham’ 3.13.0 ‘TX 51-91’ 3.5 3.2 ‘TX 39-88’ 3.6 3.6 TX 49-90’ 5.4 5.0 ‘Kelly’ 2.82.9 LSD (p = .05) 0.9 0.7

TABLE 55 Comparison of the length (mm) of glume #2 in first and thirdwhorl of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted innursery #2. Glume Length in First Glume Length in Variety Whorl (mm)Third Whorl (mm) ‘HB-128’ 3.3 3.1 ‘HB-129’ 3.5 3.3 ‘HB-130’ 3.0 3.2‘HB-328’ 3.8 3.9 ‘HB 329’ 3.6 3.7 ‘Reveille’ 3.3 3.5 Geronimo’ 2.9 3.1‘Ascot’ 3.1 3.2 ‘Midnight’ 3.1 3.3 ‘Buckingham’ 3.4 3.4 ‘TX 51-91’ 4.24.3 ‘TX 39-88’ 4.0 4.2 TX 49-90’ 6.0 5.4 ‘Kelly’ 3.0 3.0 LSD (P = .05)1.0 0.8

TABLE 56 Comparison of the number of florets per spikelet in first andthird whorl in panicles of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrasscultivars planted in nursery #2. Florets per Spikelet Florets perSpikelet Variety In First Whorl In Third Whorl ‘HB-128’ 6.7 6.3 ‘HB-129’8.6 7.0 ‘HB-130’ 6.3 6.4 ‘HB-328’ 5.2 5.0 ‘HB 329’ 4.6 5.0 ‘Reveille’4.0 4.9 Geronimo’ 5.2 6.0 ‘Ascot’ 3.8 4.3 ‘Midnight’ 4.3 5.6‘Buckingham’ 6.7 7.1 ‘TX 51-91’ 8.8 8.3 ‘TX 39-88’ 8.0 7.9 TX 49-90’ 8.78.6 ‘Kelly’ 4.3 4.9 LSD (P = .05) 1.7 1.8

TABLE 57 Comparison of the length and width (mm) of 10 seeds of ‘HB-128’and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3.Variety Length 10 Seeds (mm) Width of 10 Seeds (mm) ‘HB-128’ 32.0 9.9‘HB-129’ 32.8 9.8 ‘HB-130’ 31.9 9.5 ‘HB-328’ 31.3 10.3 ‘HB-329’ 38.211.0 ‘Geronimo’ 32.5 10.8 ‘TX51-90’ n/a n/a ‘TX49-90’ n/a n/a ‘Ascot’32.2 9.8 ‘Midnight’ 33.0 9.3 ‘Reveille’ 32.5 10.8 ‘Kelly’ 32.8 10.1 LSD(P = .05) 2.5 1.0

TABLE 58 Comparison of 1000 count seed weight (grams) of ‘HB-128’ andKentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. Variety1000 count seed weight (grams) ‘HB-128’ 0.5680 ‘HB-129’ 0.5682 ‘HB-130’0.5735 ‘HB-328’ 0.5411 ‘HB-329’ 0.5881 ‘Geronimo’ 0.5760 ‘TX51-90’ n/a‘TX49-90’ n/a ‘Ascot’ 0.5695 ‘Midnight’ 0.5217 ‘Reveille’ 0.6020 ‘Kelly’0.5729 LSD (P = .05) 0.0791

TABLE 59 Comparison of summer re-growth during an extended 8 weekdrought period following harvest of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texasbluegrass cultivars planted in nursery #3. Variety Green Tissue (%)‘HB-128’ 36.7 ‘HB-129’ 28.3 ‘HB-130’ 38.3 ‘HB-328’ 16.7 ‘HB-329’ 60.0‘Geronimo’ 41.7 ‘TX51-90’ 86.7 ‘TX49-90’ 90.0 ‘Ascot’ 16.7 ‘Midnight’10.0 ‘Reveille’ 88.3 ‘Kelly’ 10.0 LSD (p = .05) 15.2 * This table showsthat ‘HB 128’ has a more rapid regrowth following an drought induceddormancy than ‘HB 129’.

TABLE 60 Comparison of plant spread (aggressiveness) at 15 months afterplanting of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars plantedin nursery #3 (when measured in mid-winter). Variety Plant Spread(square cm area) ‘HB-128’ 2565 ‘HB-129’ 2279 ‘HB-130’ 2376 ‘HB-328’ 1520‘HB 329’ 1097 ‘Reveille’ 1210 Geronimo’ 2178 ‘Ascot’ 950 ‘Midnight’ 912‘Buckingham’ 1330 ‘TX 51-91’ 672 ‘TX 39-88’ 385 TX 49-90’ 337 ‘Kelly’982 LSD (P = .05) 544

TABLE 61 Comparison of incidence of rust and dollarspot disease on plotof a turf planting of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky bluegrass cultivars plantedin Valley Center, California (one year after seeding). Variety Rust %Dollarspot % ‘HB-128’ 15.3 13.3 ‘HB-129’ 16.7 21.7 ‘HB-130’ 13.3 16.7‘HB-328’ 2.0 0.0 ‘HB 329’ 2.0 0.3 ‘Abbey’ 13.3 16.7 ‘Midnight’ 26.7 0.3‘Apollo’ 23.3 0.0 LSD (P = .05) 10.3 10.6 * This table shows that ‘HB128’ has a better tolerance to foliar dollarspot disease than ‘HB 129’.

TABLE 62 Comparison of spring color and texture of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckybluegrass cultivars ma turf planting in Valley Center, California(planted in October). Spring Color Spring Texture 9 = Dark Green, 9 =Fine, Variety 1 = Yellow 1 = Coarse ‘HB-128’ 5.3 6.0 ‘HB-129’ 5.0 6.7‘HB-130’ 6.0 6.3 ‘HB-328’ 8.0 5.3 ‘HB 329’ 8.0 5.0 ‘Abbey’ 5.3 6.3‘Midnight’ 7.0 7.0 ‘Apollo’ 7.0 7.0 LSD (P = .05) 1.0 0.8

TABLE 63 Comparison of summer (June) and winter (January) turfperformance of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky bluegrass cultivars in ValleyCenter, California. % Leaf Roll % Winter Discolor Variety (Heat Stress)(Cold Stress) ‘HB-128’ 60.0 41.7 ‘HB-129’ 43.3 41.7 ‘HB-130’ 40.0 43.3‘HB-328’ 0.0 33.3 ‘HB 329’ 8.3 33.3 ‘Abbey’ 36.7 50.0 ‘Midnight’ 36.720.0 ‘Apollo’ 36.7 26.7 LSD (p = .05) 34.4 4.9

TABLE 64 Comparison of vertical growth performance and greening in earlyspring of ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky bluegrass cultivars in turf planting inGervais, Oregon (planted in September). Spring Vertical Growth EarlySpring Greenup Variety (height - cm) 9 = Green, 1 = Brown ‘HB-128’ 91.36.7 ‘HB-130’ 82.3 6.3 ‘HB-328’ 70.3 4.7 ‘HB 329’ 64.3 4.3 ‘HB-129’ 84.36.0 ‘Bluemax’ 59.3 3.3 ‘Courtyard’ 54.0 2.3 ‘Avalanche’ 83.0 6.7‘Kenblue’ 92.0 7.3 ‘Geronimo’ 68.7 5.3 LSD (P = .05) 14.5 0.9 * Thistable demonstrates that ‘HB 128’ is quicker to greenup in springtimethan ‘HB 129’ and shows better recovery from winter induced dormancy.

TABLE 65 Comparison of seedling density in two different turf plantingsof ‘HB-128’ and Kentucky and Texas bluegrass cultivars fall planted (inSeason #1 and #2) in Gervais, Oregon. Growing Season #1 Growing Season#2 Variety 21 Days After Planting 27 Days After Planting ‘HB-128’ 45.017.5 ‘HB-129’ 25.0 9.5 ‘HB-130’ 38.3 12.0 ‘HB-328’ 31.7 16.3 ‘HB-329’7.7 9.8 ‘Geronimo’ 35.0 11.5 ‘Midnight’ n/a 11.3 ‘Reveille’ n/a 1.1‘Ascot’ n/a 14.5 ‘Apollo’ n/a 6.8 ‘Kenblue’ 56.7 23.0 ‘Park’ n/a 30.0‘Longhorn’ n/a 22.5 LSD (P = .05) 14.6 6.85 * This table shows that ‘HB128’ has demonstrated a more rapid germination and establishment thanother hybrid and some Kentucky bluegrasses.

TABLE 66 Comparison of summer turf dormancy of ‘HB-128’ and Kentuckybluegrass cultivars in Cleveland, Texas. Variety Percent Brown Turf‘HB-128’ 56.7 ‘HB-129’ 41.7 ‘HB-130’ 38.3 ‘HB-328’ 31.7 ‘Reveille’ 50.0‘Ascot’ 43.3 ‘Coventry’ 46.7 ‘Abbey’ 40.0 LSD (p = .10) 14.43

Additional Color Description

The upper and lower leaf blade surface colors of ‘HB-128’ weredetermined by comparing several actively growing leaves one at a time,in full sun, with color chips from the Munsell Book of Color, Volume Iof a two volume set as a reference. On this basis, the color of theupper and lower leaf blade surfaces were determined. The upper leafblade surfaces ranged from 5GY 4/4 to 4/6 and the lower leaf bladesurfaces ranged from 5GY 3/4 to 3/6.

Additionally, color designations were determined from tillers harvestedfrom the plant nursery using the Munsell Book of Color, Volume I of atwo volume set as a reference, as follows: 10YR 7/4 to 8/6 for ‘HB-228’culm; 10YR 7/4 to 7/6 for peduncle; 10YG 7/4 to 8/4 for spikelet; and10YG 6/4 to 7/4 for ‘HB-128’ seed.

1. A new and distinct hybrid variety of Texas bluegrass×Kentuckybluegrass plant, as herein illustrated and described and characterizedby more rapid establishment; a medium dark green, dense turf; a mediumwide leaf blade; aggressive spreading growth habit; a reduced level ofcotton on the seed; early spring greenup and rapid recovery from summerdormancy and a medium to high seed yield potential.